vikingTON Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Then sadly you are a rather deluded fellow struggling for a Bon mot in the face of all the evidence. If that were the case your unionist cohorts wouldn't be quite so defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It's like trying to explain the obvious to toddlers as they are having a tantrum. "fairies DO exist. They DO. They DO". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 I contend that the anecdotal experience you have explained can only very dubiously be called an arranged marriage. By definition arranged marriage requires that courtship is either curtailed or avoided. If "people go out on a date, decide if they like each other, maybe go out on a few more dates, and if they decide its worthwhile, then it could become a marriage" they participate in courtship, meaning it's (by definition) not actually an arranged marriage. I happen to believe that it is utterly abhorrent if parents attempt in any way to restrict the class of persons "socially eligible" for their children to marry, even if the marriage is not in of itself contrary to the two adults in question. If we are going to construe arranged marriage so widely as to subvert its meaning and undermine the basic premise of it entailing someone else effectively selecting suitable life partners for you, even if you have the right to reject said life-partner, it would be impossible to cast any sort of judgment on arranged marriage whatsoever. Since we live in the real world, however, where words actually mean what they're meant to and situations can be described accurately only with reference to them, your definition of arranged marriage is based on someone who on the face of the evidence you've ventured, didn't actually have an "arranged marriage", merely their parents suggested a potential person to court and waited and see what happened. Thats what my friends of Pakistani origin called "an arranged marriage". As I said, its their definition, not mine. I'm against arranged marriage personally, but the way they tell it, it doesn't sound so bad. Hardly an "abhorrent practice". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Thats what my friends of Pakistani origin called "an arranged marriage". As I said, its their definition, not mine. I'm against arranged marriage personally, but the way they tell it, it doesn't sound so bad. Hardly an "abhorrent practice". I'd say in this context it's completely irrelevant what origin your friends are. If they are calling the practice of parents arranging what sounds very much like a date - and the children still have the power to choose to go on more dates, or veto the whole thing - an "arranged marriage", then they're wrong. That's not an "arranged marriage" by any definition. By that definition, I could say that the blind date my parents set me up on when I was 17 (turns out it was with a family friends' daughter, someone I was good friends with before the blind date and someone I'm good friends with still ) was an "arranged marriage", when it clearly wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Thats what my friends of Pakistani origin called "an arranged marriage". As I said, its their definition, not mine. I'm against arranged marriage personally, but the way they tell it, it doesn't sound so bad. Hardly an "abhorrent practice". Parents exercising any power whatsoever to influence the 'selection' of their child's 'soul-mate' is abhorrent. It's coercive and utterly unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'd say in this context it's completely irrelevant what origin your friends are. If they are calling the practice of parents arranging what sounds very much like a date - and the children still have the power to choose to go on more dates, or veto the whole thing - an "arranged marriage", then they're wrong. That's not an "arranged marriage" by any definition. By that definition, I could say that the blind date my parents set me up on when I was 17 (turns out it was with a family friends' daughter, someone I was good friends with before the blind date and someone I'm good friends with still ) was an "arranged marriage", when it clearly wasn't. Thank you Gaz. That's exactly what I'm getting at. But you're still the worst of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Thank you Gaz. That's exactly what I'm getting at. But you're still the worst of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'd say in this context it's completely irrelevant what origin your friends are. If they are calling the practice of parents arranging what sounds very much like a date - and the children still have the power to choose to go on more dates, or veto the whole thing - an "arranged marriage", then they're wrong. That's not an "arranged marriage" by any definition. By that definition, I could say that the blind date my parents set me up on when I was 17 (turns out it was with a family friends' daughter, someone I was good friends with before the blind date and someone I'm good friends with still ) was an "arranged marriage", when it clearly wasn't. Like I said, its not my definition! Here's someone else on this thread discussing an arranged marriage: I attended an arranged marriage last year. Between two Indians. Their parents were pretty lax as far as the arranging goes. They were at least allowed to decide if they liked each other after being "introduced" by their respective parents. Its not all forced marriages at gunpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 London knows best chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Its not all forced marriages at gunpoint. And no one, not one person said it was. As usual, you savage the poster's orientation to the uk, not his argument. It's not funny anymore. I'm seriously beginning to doubt your intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Like I said, its not my definition! Here's someone else on this thread discussing an arranged marriage: It's the one you're using though. Its not all forced marriages at gunpoint. No one suggested it was such. London knows best chief. Good thing there was that arranged Union, because as the parents of Scotland we didn't want them meddling with those unsuitable Scandanavian types. Praise Vectron for such an enlightened decision, because even if it was taken down the aisle out of subservience it's not that bad because they get to say whether they like each other first!!!!!* * For the benefit of XBL, this is a (probably poor) attempt at 'humour'. It is a parody of your utterings and in no way an inference of particular or general allegiance to the Union, Westminster or any other political state asserting sovereignty or nationhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Like I said, its not my definition! Here's someone else on this thread discussing an arranged marriage: Its not all forced marriages at gunpoint. It doesn't matter if it's "not [your] definition". The very definition of the word, um, definition is that it is defined. It has a set and agreed meaning (and while meanings can change over time, that's not relevant in this context). For something to be an "arranged marriage", there would have to be just that - a marriage - or at the very least, the motions in place for a marriage (an assumed engagement, notification of family members, etc.). Two sets of parents arranging a 'date' or 'dinner' for their children - while the children have full control over the progress of (if any) relationship (further dates, social occasions, friendships) is not an arranged marriage, under any context. It doesn't matter if it's not your definition, if it is their definition, then it is wrong. There's no question about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 It's the one you're using though. As I said, I have been told (rather forcefully) that this is what they consider to be "arranged marriage". The parents are involved, they get the proposals sent to them, and they suggest good matches to their kids. Like it or not, this appears to be what those in the asian community that I know, and going by his evidence, those that HB knows, consider as "arranged marriage". Its not my fault that I'm reporting reality, and that HB decides to have a go at the poster rather than the post. I didn't bring this subject up on the thread. In fact, I suggested that HB find the relevant thread and bump it if he wished to discuss it. Two sets of parents arranging a 'date' or 'dinner' for their children - while the children have full control over the progress of (if any) relationship (further dates, social occasions, friendships) is not an arranged marriage, under any context. It doesn't matter if it's not your definition, if it is their definition, then it is wrong. There's no question about it. I'm sorry. But in that case, the wedding that HB was at was not an "arranged marriage" either then? And that the asian community are wrong? Quick, to wikipedia!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage An arranged marriage is one in which by someone other than the couple getting married makes the selection of the persons to be wed, curtailing or avoiding the process of courtship. Such marriages had deep roots in royal and aristocratic families around the world, including Europe. Today, arranged marriage is largely practiced in South Asia,[1] Africa, Middle East, and East Asia to some extent.[2] Other groups that practice this custom include the Unification Church. It should not be confused with the practice of forced marriage. Arranged marriages vary in both nature and duration of time from meeting to engagement. In an "introduction only" arranged marriage, the parents may only introduce their son or daughter to a potential spouse. From that point on, it is up to the children to manage the relationship and make a choice. There is no set time period. This is common in the rural parts of North America,[citation needed] South America and especially in India and Pakistan. The same pattern also appears in Japan. This type of arranged marriage is very common in Iran under the name of khastegary. This open-ended process takes considerably more courage on the part of the parents, as well as the prospective spouses, in comparison to a fixed time-limit arranged marriage. Men and women fear the stigma and emotional trauma of going through a courtship and then being rejected.[citation needed] In some cases, a prospective partner may be selected by the son or daughter instead of by the parents or by a matchmaker. In such cases, the parents will either disapprove of the match and forbid the marriage or approve the match and agree to proceed with the marriage. Such cases are distinct from a love marriage because courtship is curtailed or absent and the parents retain the prerogative to forbid the match. In cultures where dating is not prevalent, arranged marriages perform a similar function—bringing together people who might otherwise not have met. In such cultures, arranged marriage is viewed as the norm and accepted by young adults. Even where courtship practices are becoming fashionable, young adults tend to view arranged marriage as an option they can fall back on if they are unable or unwilling to spend the time and effort necessary to find spouses on their own. In such cases, the parents become welcome partners in a hunt for marital bliss. Further, in several cultures, the last duty of a parent to his or her son or daughter is to see that he or she passes through the marital rites. I'm guessing these are all wrong as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I would say that yes, they are wrong. All have one thing in common-the intercession of the parents. I can understand that for those who find it difficult to meet someone, arranged marriage could be a boon. I can see how some versions are less prescriptive than others. But the notion that a parent can decide the marital fate of his offspring is pretty loathsome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 I would say that yes, they are wrong. All have one thing in common-the intercession of the parents. I can understand that for those who find it difficult to meet someone, arranged marriage could be a boon. I can see how some versions are less prescriptive than others. But the notion that a parent can decide the marital fate of his offspring is pretty loathsome. Like I said, I wouldn't personally welcome it, but that wikipedia definition is exactly how I've heard it defined, and it appears to be exactly how HB has witnessed it. So can it be that the whole world is wrong, except for three guys on pie and bovril? I didn't just make it up and pluck a definition out of the sky, I appear to be using the common definition! As the article says, it isn't to be confused with forced marriage, which is a different thing. (Edited to tidy up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Like I said, I wouldn't personally welcome it, but that wikipedia definition is exactly how I've heard it defined, and it appears to be exactly how HB has witnessed it. So can it be that the whole world is wrong, except for three guys on pie and bovril? Like I said, I didn't just make it up and pluck a definition out of the sky. I appear to be using the common definition! As the article says, it isn't to be confused with forced marriage. What you are clearly missing here is the distinction between parents setting their child up on a date with a nice sort of person and waiting to see what happens and them taking a clear defining role in deciding who can and cannot be introduced as a prospective partner. I hardly think that you can use a Wikipedia page on a largely social issue, which is descriptive rather than analytical of the processes and premises behind what constitutes an "arranged marriage" as a conclusive and inarguable definition of globally writ opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 As I said, I have been told (rather forcefully) that this is what they consider to be "arranged marriage". The parents are involved, they get the proposals sent to them, and they suggest good matches to their kids. Like it or not, this appears to be what those in the asian community that I know, and going by his evidence, those that HB knows, consider as "arranged marriage". Its not my fault that I'm reporting reality, and that HB decides to have a go at the poster rather than the post. I didn't bring this subject up on the thread. In fact, I suggested that HB find the relevant thread and bump it if he wished to discuss it. I'm sorry. But in that case, the wedding that HB was at was not an "arranged marriage" either then? And that the asian community are wrong? Quick, to wikipedia!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage I'm guessing these are all wrong as well? Like I said, I wouldn't personally welcome it, but that wikipedia definition is exactly how I've heard it defined, and it appears to be exactly how HB has witnessed it. So can it be that the whole world is wrong, except for three guys on pie and bovril? I didn't just make it up and pluck a definition out of the sky, I appear to be using the common definition! As the article says, it isn't to be confused with forced marriage, which is a different thing. (Edited to tidy up) Fair enough. I had no idea that the phrase "arranged marriage" was used in any other context other than, well, arranging a marriage. To me, that phrasing (as prevalent as it is) is still wrong though. If parents are introducing their offspring to each other, in this "introduction only" type thing, then that shouldn't be classed as any means as an "arranged marriage". To me the phrasing seems totally contradictory. If it's used in that context then fair enough, but I disagree that it's the correct one. To me the whole concept of an "introduction-only arranged marriage" is absolutely ludicrous. It's either an arranged marriage, or it's not. That's the way I call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 As the article says, it isn't to be confused with forced marriage, which is a different thing. NOBODY here is saying it is the same as forced marriage. Forced marriage is where the will of the two parties to a marriage is ignored and that of third parties is supplanted. Arranged marriage is where the class of persons someone may marry is restricted by a third party. It stops short of making someone marry another against their will, but it uses coercion to proscribe certain individuals or classes of person from being introduced with a view to marriage. In other words, if we want to refer to your glorious Wikipedia article, courtship is curtailed or avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Fair enough. I had no idea that the phrase "arranged marriage" was used in any other context other than, well, arranging a marriage. To me, that phrasing (as prevalent as it is) is still wrong though. If parents are introducing their offspring to each other, in this "introduction only" type thing, then that shouldn't be classed as any means as an "arranged marriage". To me the phrasing seems totally contradictory. If it's used in that context then fair enough, but I disagree that it's the correct one. To me the whole concept of an "introduction-only arranged marriage" is absolutely ludicrous. It's either an arranged marriage, or it's not. That's the way I call it. I suppose it would be an arranged introduction, marriage surely woudn't come into it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Like I said, I wouldn't personally welcome it, but that wikipedia definition is exactly how I've heard it defined, and it appears to be exactly how HB has witnessed it. So can it be that the whole world is wrong, except for three guys on pie and bovril? I didn't just make it up and pluck a definition out of the sky, I appear to be using the common definition! As the article says, it isn't to be confused with forced marriage, which is a different thing (Edited to tidy up) Of course it's different from forced marriage. Not even you could defend that. However, all the methods you quote above effectively mean that a prescribed list of people considered suitable by parents are presented as the options. It's completely alien to me. It's like feminism never happened, to men or women. Should it be banned? No, only forced marriage should be criminal. Is it morally wrong? In my eyes, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.